Happy Thanksgiving! Headlines will return MONDAY, Nov 27
Chairman Pai Circulates Draft Order To Restore Internet Freedom And Eliminate Heavy-Handed Internet Regulations
Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades. Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet. Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate. Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy.
FCC to preempt state broadband laws
In addition to ditching its own network neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service. This detail was revealed by senior FCC officials in a phone briefing with reporters, and is a victory for broadband providers that asked for widespread preemption of state laws. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposed order finds that state and local laws must be preempted if they conflict with the US government's policy of deregulating broadband Internet service, FCC officials said. The FCC will vote on the order at its December 14 meeting.
NY AG Open Letter to the FCC
[Commentary] For six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities. Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed.
Chairmen Walden, Blackburn on the FCC’s Net Neutrality Announcement
Today’s announcement demonstrates that the FCC, under the leadership of Ajit Pai, understands the importance of making sure the internet continues to flourish under a light-touch regulatory regime. The past two years of heavy-handed regulation will be only a blip on the screen of a decades-long bipartisan equilibrium that successfully supported innovation and growth. We also remain committed to ensuring clear, permanent net neutrality rules through the legislative process, encouraging investment in broadband buildout, and closing the digital divide across America.
Rep Eshoo Statement on FCC Evisceration of Net Neutrality
Today, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai confirmed his long-term goal to unravel net neutrality protections, demonstrating that he is on the wrong side of history, startups, consumers and the public interest. As millions of Americans voice their support for a free and open internet, Chairman Pai’s proposal hands the internet over to the largest Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who can throttle, assess a toll or block content. The net neutrality protections have advanced competition and innovation, created more startups and entrepreneurs, and have been judicially approved. Repealing these protections is an assault on what has made the internet what it is… an open and dynamic platform. This is not the end of a battle but the beginning of a new one that I will engage in to protect the open internet for my constituents and all Americans.
Statement of FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn on the Pre-Holiday News Dump
In just two days, many of us will join friends and family in celebrating the spirit of Thanksgiving. But as we learned today the Federal Communications Commission majority is about to deliver a cornucopia full of rotten fruit, stale grains, and wilted flowers topped off with a plate full of burnt turkey. Their Destroying Internet Freedom Order would dismantle net neutrality as we know it by giving the green light to our nation’s largest broadband providers to engage in anti-consumer practices, including blocking, slowing down traffic, and paid prioritization of online applications and services. Tucked away in this ‘Pre-Holiday News Dump’ is yet another proposal that reportedly seeks to allow even greater media consolidation. Ignoring federal law, it could open the doors to a single company reaching in excess of the 39% national broadcast audience cap set by Congress more than a decade ago.
Statement of Commissioner Carr on the Circulation of a Draft Order on Restoring Internet Freedom
Today, the Chairman circulated a draft order that would restore Internet freedom by reversing the Obama-era Federal Communications Commission’s regulatory overreach. Prior to the FCC’s 2015 decision, consumers and innovators alike benefited from a free and open Internet because the FCC abided by a 20-year, bipartisan consensus that the government should not control or heavily regulate Internet access. The Internet flourished under this framework. So I fully support returning to this approach, which will promote innovation and investment for the benefit of all Americans. I look forward to casting my vote in support of Internet freedom.
Statement of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel on FCC Leadership's Plan to Roll Back Internet Rights
Today the Federal Communications Commission circulated its sweeping roll back of our network neutrality rules. Following actions earlier in 2017 to erase consumer privacy protections, the Commission now wants to wipe out court-tested rules and a decade’s work in order to favor cable and telephone companies. This is ridiculous and offensive to the millions of Americans who use the Internet every day. Our Internet economy is the envy of the world because it is open to all. This proposal tears at the foundation of that openness. It hands broadband providers the power to decide what voices to amplify, which sites we can visit, what connections we can make, and what communities we create. It throttles access, stalls opportunity, and censors content. It would be a big blunder for a slim majority of the FCC to approve these rules and saddle every Internet user with the cruel consequences.
Statement of Commissioner Michael O'Rielly on the Commission's Extensive December Agenda
I thank the Chairman for circulating the items for the December meeting and look forward to reading each one.The time has come to overturn the market disrupting net neutrality and common carrier regulations that sacrificed decades of precedent and the independence of the agency for political ends while doing nothing to protect actual consumers. The Internet was a vibrant place of commerce and public discourse before the rules ever took effect and will continue to flourish after we discard this unnecessary and harmful regulatory overhang. I look forward to reviewing the Chairman’s proposal and working together to ensure that the order contains the necessary legal and analytical foundations, including preemption, to implement sound policy and withstand the challenges that are certain to ensue. The National Television Ownership Cap item rightly recognizes what I have consistently stated: that the 39 percent cap and UHF discount are intricately linked.
Statement of Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen on Restoring Internet Freedom and Returning FTC Competition and Consumer Protections to Broadband Subscribers
I am pleased to see progress on this important matter. The Federal Trade Commission has long applied its competition and consumer protection expertise to network neutrality issues. The FTC also participated in the Federal Communications Commission’s proceeding, and I am gratified that my comments and those of FTC staff appear to have been taken into consideration in the development of this order. I look forward to reading the full draft order. The FTC stands ready to protect broadband subscribers from anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts and practices just as we protect consumers in the rest of the Internet ecosystem.
President Trump's FCC Is About to Destroy Net Neutrality, and Commissioner Rosenworcel Is Calling Foul
Network neutrality is on its deathbed, and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, appointed by President Donald Trump, is about to pull the plug. But not everyone on the FCC is gunning to undo the hard-won net neutrality protections. The FCC started soliciting comments from the public on Chairman Pai’s proposal to end network neutrality in May. More than 22 million comments came in, but there have been so many serious irregularities with the process that FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel thinks the FCC needs to slam on the brakes. “I’ve got concerns,” said Commissioner Rosenworcel, who also served on FCC under President Barack Obama and originally voted to instate the open internet order in 2015. “There were some procedural problems with the way this all came together.” For instance, she said, there have been allegations that most of the comments came from bots, or some even from dead people.
The End of Net Neutrality Isn't the End of the World
[Commentary] Eliminating net neutrality is, in the best and worst case scenarios, either necessary to keep the internet up and running, or will lead to a dystopian future where a few major corporations control our thoughts. The more prosaic reality, however, is that a world without net neutrality will work just fine. I am therefore not incensed (or very excited) about the Federal Communications Commission proposal. Proponents of net neutrality are typically worried about the monopoly and pricing power held by cable companies and other internet service providers. Options for access, however, are improving. Cellphone service is falling in price, smartphones are growing in size and quality, and Wi-Fi connections are all over the place. That said, a lot of monopoly power remains. But look at it this way: Those monopolists don’t want to distort the consumer experience too much, so they can keep charging high prices.
Net Neutrality Protests to Hit Verizon Stores Across the US During Busy Holiday-Shopping Season
Internet users outraged by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to gut Network Neutrality are planning to protest at Verizon retail stores across the country on Thursday, Dec. 7, one week before an expected vote at the FCC. In some cities, protesters will march from Verizon stores to lawmakers’ offices. The protests will highlight the company’s role lobbying to kill rules that prevent telecom giants from charging extra fees, engaging in censorship, or controlling what internet users see and do through discriminatory throttling. Protesters will carry signs calling on their members of Congress to speak out against Verizon’s attacks on Net Neutrality and publicly oppose the FCC’s plan, which is expected to be released this week.
With Net Neutrality on the Chopping Block, Communities Are Taking Matters Into their Own Hands—and Scaring the Hell out of Comcast
Will Congress Bless Internet Fast Lanes?
[Commentary] As the Federal Communications Commission gets ready to abandon a decade of progress on net neutrality, some in Congress are considering how new legislation could fill the gap and protect users from unfair ISP practices. Unfortunately, too many lawmakers seem to be embracing the idea that they should allow ISPs to create Internet “fast lanes” -- also known as “paid prioritization,” one of the harmful practices that violates net neutrality. They are also looking to re-assign the job of protecting customers from ISP abuses to the Federal Trade Commission. These are both bad ideas. If the FCC abandons its commitment to net neutrality, Congress can and should step in to put it back on course. That means enacting real, forward-looking legislation that embraces all of the bright-line rules, not just the ones ISPs don’t mind. And it means forcing the FCC to its job, rather than handing it off to another agency that’s not well-positioned to do the work.
FCC’s Rollback of Net-Neutrality Rules Won’t Settle the Divisive Issue
Although the Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's new net neutrality proposal in December 2017, that won’t end a debate that’s roiled the tech world for years. Aggrieved parties will try to save the regulations in federal court, where judges will decide whether the agency is within its rights to reverse a regulation it adopted little more than two years ago. Legally, the agency can reverse its rules if it has a good reason.
Donald Trump’s FCC is a Clear and Present Danger to Democracy
[Commentary] President Donald Trump’s chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, and the Trump-aligned majority on a commission is bent on clearing the way for precisely the sort of media monopoly that FDR and the small-“d” democrats of his time feared. Recently, the FCC voted 3-2 for a radical rewrite of media-ownership rules that will benefit corporate conglomerates, while diminishing the character and quality of the discourse in communities across the United States. In so doing, they strengthened the hand of at least one conglomerate that is closely aligned with Trump. It is disgraceful. And it is dangerous. It threatens the discourse that sustains democracy at the local, state and national levels.
Stop the Next Internet Power Grab
[Commentary] The Constitution’s Commerce Clause provides Congress with the power to regulate interstate commerce. Given that the internet permits consumers and businesses to connect to others in different states (as well as countries), broadband services are inherently interstate services and must therefore be protected from state and local interference. As the Federal Communications Commission rolls back the Obama-era regulations on the internet, it should also take the opportunity to affirmatively recognize this. Allowing the Obama administration’s dangerous policy to infest the internet through state and local government mandates serves no purpose other than to stifle America’s entrepreneurial spirit, frustrate innovation, and block economic opportunity. Imposing public utility regulations — which have their roots in the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 — on the internet is not the right policy to keep America globally competitive.
The FCC’s net neutrality proposal: A shameful sham that sells out consumers
[Commentary] The day after the Trump Justice Department sues to block the vertical integration of AT&T and Time Warner, the Trump Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposes eliminating rules that could be used to prevent the same harms to consumers. Right hand…meet left hand. Fighting against monopolization in the internet era…meet ideologically-driven “do what the big guys want.” The Trump FCC’s proposal to eliminate the over-two-year-old Open Internet Rule is a shameful sham and sellout. The assertion that the FCC proposal is somehow pro-consumer is a sham that doesn’t pass the straight-face test. It is impossible to find anything pro-consumer in the expert telecommunications agency walking away from its responsibilities in favor of an agency with no telecommunications expertise or authority. Here is the secret why the big companies want this: the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has NO rule-making regulatory authority in this area. [Tom Wheeler]
Net Neutrality Is Fiction, No Matter What FCC Does
[Commentary] No matter what the Federal Communications Commission does, America's internet is not an equal place and it's only going to become less fair. The reality is big companies do have a privileged path into people's digital lives. They have the money and the technical ability to make sure their websites and internet videos speed through internet pipes without delays or hiccups. Web services from big companies such as Netflix and Google account for the majority of internet use during peak evening hours in North America. And even though Google doesn't need to pay AT&T or Verizon Communications, it sometimes does either directly or indirectly. Google, Netflix Inc. and other rich companies have long had agreements to connect their computer equipment directly into telecommunications companies' networks. In some cases, those web companies pay fees for the privilege, known as paid peering.
To Save Net Neutrality, We Must Build Our Own Internet
Network neutrality as a principle of the federal government will soon be dead, but the protections are wildly popular among the American people and are integral to the internet as we know it. Rather than putting such a core tenet of the internet in the hands of politicians, whose whims and interests change with their donors, net neutrality must be protected by a populist revolution in the ownership of internet infrastructure and networks. In short, we must end our reliance on big telecom monopolies and build decentralized, affordable, locally owned internet infrastructure. The great news is this is currently possible in most parts of the United States.
America is about to kill the open internet and towns like this will pay the price
Pai's Tranparency: File This One Under “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished”
[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission is expected to release its draft Network Neutrality Order on Wednesday, November 22—just before Thanksgiving. This timing has created an uproar among some opponents of the Order, who claim that the timing is merely part of what is admittedly an unfortunately common strategy among governments to release unpopular news when it thinks the public is least likely to see it. In this case, however, the claim has several problems.
FCC Chairman Pai Proposes Review of TV Ownership Cap, UHF Discount
Earlier this year, the Commission reinstated the UHF discount, finding that the prior FCC’s decision last year to eliminate it absent a simultaneous review of the 39 percent national cap effectively tightened the cap without determining whether that was in the public interest. Because the national cap and the UHF discount are inextricably linked, any review of one component of the rule must include a review of the other. Under the proposal that I shared with my colleagues today, we would go about determining the future of the national cap, including the UHF discount, the right way. Specifically, we would seek public input on whether to modify, retain, or eliminate the 39 percent national cap as well as the UHF discount. With respect to legal authority, in 2016 the Commission ‘conclude[d] that [it] has the authority to modify the national audience reach cap, including the authority to revise or eliminate the UHF discount’; we will take a fresh look at this issue as well.
FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel Statement on Media Ownership Cap Proposal
Today’s proposal from FCC leadership asks to either eliminate or modify the existing national media ownership cap. On this subject, Congress has made it clear that the FCC is not permitted to change or evade the cap, which statutorily prohibits a single broadcaster from acquiring stations that reach more than 39% of the national television audience. In fact, just yesterday, Congressional leaders warned the FCC not to use its regulatory authority to ignore the law. The FCC proposal asks what authority the Commission has to eliminate or modify the ownership cap and the answer is simple: there is none. This proposal is a giveaway to the largest station group at the expense of diversity, localism, and competition.
President Trump: AT&T-Time Warner merger 'not good for the country'
President Donald Trump said that AT&T's planned merger with Time Warner is "not good for the country." Personally, I’ve always felt that that was a deal that’s not good for the country,” President Trump told reporters at the White House. The president's comments came a day after the Justice Department sued AT&T to block the $85 billion Time Warner merger, arguing that the deal would create a media behemoth and ultimately hurt U.S. consumers.
The Trump administration’s AT&T lawsuit looks political, but motive might not matter in court
Trump’s right to oppose the AT&T Time Warner merger. But it’s for the wrong reasons.
[Commentary] There is some grounds for asking whether the Trump administration actions have a lot more to to with President Trump’s dislike of CNN than with a supposed concern about monopolies. Judging from other actions, President Trump and his appointees don’t harbor a serious concern about the impact of media consolidation on the American public. Take net neutrality. Or the proposed merger between Sinclair Broadcasting Group and Tribune Media. It’s hard to avoid noticing that even as the Justice Department is attempting to stop one major media merger, the FCC is undertaking policies that would make them easier elsewhere, all but clearing the regulatory runway so outfits such as Sinclair meet the conditions for approval in an easier fashion. Ending net neutrality will almost certainly cut into the voices and outlets that are easily accessible by consumers, leading them to corporate-behemoth-favored sources of information and entertainment.
Two key assumptions in the DOJ challenge to AT&T and Time Warner
AT&T and Time Warner want to merge. What interests me are two key assumptions underlying the Department of Justice’s case that are at odds with other Trump Administration policy or pronouncements. The first is network neutrality. The Trump Federal Communications Commission wants to do away with it — perhaps today. But if net neutrality was in place, then the DOJ concern that the integrated firm will use its power to harm other content providers and damage growing Internet competition would be significantly mitigated. In other words, that concern rests entirely on the FCC getting rid of net neutrality! That suggests the obvious question: why not just keep net neutrality if you are worried about these things? To be sure, the merger makes it worse but the concerns arise in any case due to existing market power. The second assumption regards the value of the Turner cable content. One such, ‘must carry’ channel is CNN. It is on basic cable everywhere (pretty much worldwide).
Break up Big Tech? What does that even mean?
The FCC Has Made It Harder for Native Americans to Afford Phone Service
The federal government is going to make it even more difficult for people on Tribal Lands to be connected to the wider world. In fact, most Native Americans who were counting on the Federal Communications Commission to continue with policies that many tribal communities were counting on to bring more service to far-flung tribal lands may see even cell service reduced. The FCC's commissioners voted 3-2 (split on party lines between the three Republicans and two Democrats) to make deep cuts to the Lifeline Program, which provides discounted telephone and internet service to low-income Americans, including many Native Americans. Begun in the Reagan administration, it gives a discount of up to about $9 a month to Americans who make less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level. Although it doesn’t sound like much, it means that some carriers simply provide the service at no charge.
Eliminated Burlington Telecom bidders back in as partners
ZRF Partners founder Faisal Nisar and Schurz Communications CEO Todd Schurz submitted a joint proposal to Burlington (VT), offering $25 million for Burlington Telecom. The proposal also detailed a plan to grow Burlington Telecom and make Burlington a "hot bed for tech entrepreneurs and startups in New England." The joint proposal came about through Gary Evans, an adviser to Nisar and the retired CEO of Hiawatha Broadband Communications, which Schurz bought in Oct 2017. Evans connected Nisar and Schurz, Schurz said, and the two men spoke for "hours" about their vision. Evans has served as a consultant for Burlington Telecom. ZRF would be the managing partner, Schurz said, and has control of the bid. Schurz will be an investor. The offer includes $1.75 million over the next seven years for a fund to support local startups in partnership with BTV Ignite, a nonprofit founded to support the local tech economy.
Eric Schmidt Says Google News Will 'Engineer' Russian Propaganda Out of the Feed
Eric Schmidt, Executive Chariman of Alphabet, says the company is working to ferret out Russian propaganda from Google News after facing criticism that Kremlin-owned media sites had been given plum placement on the search giant’s news and advertising platforms. “We’re well aware of this one, and we’re working on detecting this kind of scenario you’re describing and deranking those kinds of sites,” Schmidt said, after being asked why the world’s largest search company continued to classify the Russian sites as news. Schmidt name-checked two state-owned enterprises. “It’s basically RT and Sputnik,” Schmidt added. “We’re well aware and we’re trying to engineer the systems to prevent it.” Both outlets are wholly owned by the Russian government. RT is the overseas television station and online outlet, while Sputnik, the online-only media network, is available in over 30 languages.
No, you’re not being paranoid. Sites really are watching your every move
If you have the uncomfortable sense someone is looking over your shoulder as you surf the Web, you're not being paranoid. A new study finds hundreds of sites—including microsoft.com, adobe.com, and godaddy.com—employ scripts that record visitors' keystrokes, mouse movements, and scrolling behavior in real time, even before the input is submitted or is later deleted. Session replay scripts are provided by third-party analytics services that are designed to help site operators better understand how visitors interact with their Web properties and identify specific pages that are confusing or broken. As their name implies, the scripts allow the operators to re-enact individual browsing sessions. Each click, input, and scroll can be recorded and later played back.
Democratic Reps wants to commit $400 million to secure future elections from hackers
Google collects Android users’ locations even when location services are disabled
Many people realize that smartphones track their locations. But what if you actively turn off location services, haven’t used any apps, and haven’t even inserted a carrier SIM card? Even if you take all of those precautions, phones running Android software gather data about your location and send it back to Google when they’re connected to the internet. Since the beginning of 2017, Android phones have been collecting the addresses of nearby cellular towers—even when location services are disabled—and sending that data back to Google. The result is that Google, the unit of Alphabet behind Android, has access to data about individuals’ locations and their movements that go far beyond a reasonable consumer expectation of privacy.
Hackers stole the personal data of 57 million Uber passengers and drivers (Los Angeles Times)
Judges question privacy watchdog’s right to sue Trump election commission (Washington Post)
Commissioner Carr Statement on Proposed Approach for Twilight Towers
The Federal Communications Commission is focused on streamlining the deployment of infrastructure needed to deliver next-generation wireless services. Last week, for instance, the Commission adopted an Order that eliminates the need for historic preservation review when providers replace utility poles for the purpose of adding antennas or other wireless equipment. Today, I can announce the Commission’s next step in our broader effort to promote and accelerate the deployment of wireless infrastructure. Specifically, the Chairman has circulated and theCommission will vote at its December 14 meeting on a definitive solution for so-called “Twilight Towers.” These are towers that were constructed between 2001 and 2005 that did not necessarily undergo review pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act because the FCC had yet to provide clear guidance regarding compliance with that provision.
Facebook and Google’s enormous profits may buoy Wall Street. But it’s a different story in Washington.
The tech industry’s ongoing strong financial performance reflects a soaring economic outlook. But it is increasingly at odds with worsening political winds in Washington as policymakers worry that Silicon Valley has become too dominant, too invasive and too out-of-control. “There is a looming coalition of conservatives skeptical of liberal West Coast companies, and progressives who worry about bigness in any form,” said Darrell West, director of the Brookings Center for Technology Innovation. “And what the tech companies have to worry about is if this becomes a bipartisan issue and if this unites the left and the right against them. That would be a seismic shift in American politics.” For Silicon Valley, the Russia probe is merely one dimension of a broader kind of political reckoning taking place in Washington. Politicians are now talking urgently about tech firms’ moral obligation to protect America’s highest principles — something rarely said about other industries.
Facebook (Still) Letting Housing Advertisers Exclude Users by Race
In February, Facebook said it would step up enforcement of its prohibition against discrimination in advertising for housing, employment or credit. But our tests showed a significant lapse in the company’s monitoring of the rental market. Last week, ProPublica bought dozens of rental housing ads on Facebook, but asked that they not be shown to certain categories of users, such as African Americans, mothers of high school kids, people interested in wheelchair ramps, Jews, expats from Argentina and Spanish speakers. All of these groups are protected under the federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it illegal to publish any advertisement “with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.” Violators can face tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Every single ad was approved within minutes.
Benton (www.benton.org) provides the only free, reliable, and non-partisan daily digest that curates and distributes news related to universal broadband, while connecting communications, democracy, and public interest issues. Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are factually accurate, their sometimes informal tone may not always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang (headlines AT benton DOT org) and Robbie McBeath (rmcbeath AT benton DOT org) -- we welcome your comments.
(c)Benton Foundation 2017. Redistribution of this email publication -- both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org
Benton experts make knowledge and analysis accessible to include more people in communications policymaking.
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Foundation
727 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
847-328-3049
headlines AT benton DOT org